Yesterday, I wrote a column in the Hill discussing how Trump is unlikely to go to Congress in launching an attack on Iran and how he has history on his side in acting unilaterally. The column noted that many Democratic politicians and pundits who were supportive of such unilateral actions by Democratic presidents such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are suddenly opposed to Trump using the same power. It is the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law where politicians are “shocked, shocked” that Trump is using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors.
Democratic members are calling for impeachment, while others are declaring the attacks unconstitutional. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked that Trump took the action and is calling for a vote under the War Powers Act.
Schumer insisted that “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has issued a similar statement.
Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya. I represented a bipartisan group of members of Congress challenging that action. We were unsuccessful, as were such prior challenges.
I have long criticized the abandonment of the clear language of the Constitution on the declaration of wars. Only eleven such declarations have been made in our history. That has not happened since World War II in 1942. Over 125 military campaigns have spanned from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is not a rule honored solely in the breach.
Democrats were supportive when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks under Operation Infinite Reach on two continents on August 20, 1998. He ordered attacks in locations in Khartoum, Sudan, and Khost Province, Afghanistan.
The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent powers to conduct such attacks under their Article II authority as the designated Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The WPA requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours in a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate of the action.
The WPA further bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further 30-day withdrawal period.
President Trump reportedly did immediately notify Congress after the attack under the WPA .
Presidents have routinely ignored the WPA when it limited their ability to conduct foreign military operations. In 1999, Clinton ignored the 60-day deadline and continued to bomb forces in Kosovo. His actions were also challenged, but the court in Campbell v. Clinton just shrugged off the violation and said it was a non-justiciable political question.
In responding to the current demands, Trump could look to a curious ally: Hillary Clinton.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone secure authorization, from Congress. In March 2011, Clinton testified that there was no need for such consultation and declared that the Administration would ignore a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.
Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway. Despite Congress expressly denying”authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces,” both Obama and Trump did precisely that.
Trump was wise to notify Congress. However, what occurs after that is anyone’s guess. The WPA and the AUMF have been paper tigers for decades and most in Congress wanted it that way. Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities to declare war. What remains has been little more than political theater.
Even under the WPA, Trump would have 60 days to prosecute this war and another 30 days to draw down forces without congressional approval. The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period.
Trump could likely prosecute this campaign in 90 days. Indeed, if it goes beyond 90 days, we will likely be facing a potential global war with retaliatory strikes on both sides. In such an environment, it is very unlikely that Congress would withhold support for our ongoing operations.
In the meantime, the calls for impeachment are absurd given the prior actions of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is murky. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on bright-line rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law. Members will once again express their shock and disgust in the use of the same authority that they once accepted in prior presidents. Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them if history is any measure.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has both testified and litigated in the area of war powers, including the prior representation of members of Congress. He also testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.
N.B.: A slightly different version of this column ran on Fox.com
Jonathan Turley: Claud Rains was an actor speaking the lines written by the scriptwriters (Jewish twins) for the role of Captain Louis Renault. It was Cpt. Renault who was “Shocked, shocked …”
Professor:
Whew! Thank you for that crucial clarification and explnation. I thought Claude was a minor corrupt official in Vichy France and Casablanca was his biography.
Great movie
Yes, Louis Renault is a poor corrupt official in the movie.
Yes, Louis Renault is a poor corrupt official.
David.
It was a movie. Not real life.
You pathetic libs. you think the movies are real life
@David
$$$ Cha-ching $$$
Quite literally, nobody believes you.
Well he does have 2 children as physicians so there is that: Doctor of Chiropractor and Doctor of Voodoo
Jonathan: WE’RE AT WAR, AGAIN! Both Republican and Democratic presidents have used military power against other countries and their leaders without Congressional authorization. That’s because Congress has ceded its power to declare war to whomever happens to be president. Ironically, George W. Bush was the last president to get Congress’s authority in 2002 to go to war with Iraq based on the claim that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction”. Turns out that claim was false!
What makes DJT’s war with Iran remarkable? On 11/10/2013 DJT posted this: “Remember that I predicted a long time ago the President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly–not skilled”. In the 2020 campaign DJT pledged never to get involved in “stupid, foolish days of never ending wars”. He made the same pledge last year.
Yet last night DJT let Netanyahu drag the US into Israel’s war with Iran based on the false claim that Iran was “within 48 hours of producing a nuclear weapon”. There is no evidence for that claim. In fact, DJT’s own DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, had told Congress back in March that the assessment of all US intelligence agencies was that Iran was not producing a nuclear weapon and did not intend to do so. DJT ignored this assessment and did Netanyahu’s bidding by dropping bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
And DJT entered the war without Congressional authority, in violation of the War Powers Act and international law. In a normal functioning democracy DJT’s actions would be grounds for impeachment. Had Biden engaged in an unprovoked attack on Iran the MAGA Republicans in the House would have filed articles of impeachment early this morning! But they have allowed the “supreme leader” and dictator to do pretty much what he wants–especially when it comes to war.
Of course, we should seen this coming. From day one DJT has threatened military action against Panama, Denmark and Canada. Despite his claims that he is the “most skilled negotiator in the world” and would keep us out of foreign wars, DJT has failed miserably when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program.
Since January DJT has left a trail of broken promises. He promised peace and lower grocery prices. We have neither and it looks like we are about to embark on an endless war with Iran that could end up in WWIII. For the MAGA crowd on this blog do you finally feel betrayed?
Hey dennis.
Try all the way back to Viet Nam. Done by dems… Fool
” WE’RE AT WAR, AGAIN!”
No, but we have committed acts of war against Iran.
“Both Republican and Democratic presidents have used military power against other countries and their leaders without Congressional authorization. That’s because Congress has ceded its power to declare war to whomever happens to be president. ”
There is no doubt that presidents have taken and congress has allowed more military power than our framers intended.
That does NOT however mean that congress’s permission is required for every military action.
I beleive that Trump or any other president should have sought approval from congress before bombing Fordow.
But as Turley points out – that is at best a libertarian or originalist position.
It is NOT the view of the current supreme court, nor congress, nor has it been true since the mid 20th century if not earlier.
Netanyahu did not draw us into this – Iran did.
The US botched the justification for the war with Iraq.
But the only question regarding Iran is whether they were days or months away from nukes.
I suspect Netanyahu was wrong about how close Iran was. But very very few beleive that absent military action a nuclear Iran was inevitable.
Iran openly admits that it was enriching uranium to 60% – there is no use for 60% enriched uranium except as the last step before making a bomb.
60% enriched uranium can be converted to bomb grade in days, There are other requirements for a working bomb, and even more requirements to deliver one by missle – and Iran is NOT sending aircraft with a nuclear bomb anywhere.
” DJT’s own DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, had told Congress back in March that the assessment of all US intelligence agencies was that Iran was not producing a nuclear weapon and did not intend to do so.”
Incorrect – Gabbard and the IC’s assessment was that the Ayatollah has not yet consented to the final steps to produce a bomb.
And that assessment was more than 90 days ago.
“DJT ignored this assessment and did Netanyahu’s bidding by dropping bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Nope.
It does not matter whether Iran was days or months from a bomb. We know where they were headed.
More importantly still, even if Iran did NOT take the last steps necescary to produce a working deliverable bomb.
They were taking the steps to do so on short notice.
“And DJT entered the war without Congressional authority,”
No he committed an act of war against a nation violating all kinds of international law.
“In a normal functioning democracy DJT’s actions would be grounds for impeachment.”
Then why wasn’t Washington impeached for using troops to put down a rebellion ?
We are not a democracy – we are a constitutional republic.
Regardless, Democrats established in 2019 and 2021 that impeachment is a purely political act.
They are free to impeach Trump for anything at all – when they are back in power.
Keep threatening to do so, that will further delay democrats return to power.
“Had Biden engaged in an unprovoked attack on Iran the MAGA Republicans in the House would have filed articles of impeachment early this morning! But they have allowed the “supreme leader” and dictator to do pretty much what he wants–especially when it comes to war.”
We are where we are because Biden and Obama sis NOT use syufficient force to disaude Iran in the first place.
Once again Trump is cleaning up a mess made by democrats.
You are correct that after democrats allowed Iran to reach the brink of nuclear weapons Trump was unable to negotiate an end to Iran’s nuclear threat without actually using force.
Whether we are in a war or not remains to be seen.
Many things could occur from here.
Dennis – I feel betrayed by Obama and Biden who both promised that Iran would never have nuclear weapons and then allowed Iran to make great progress trowards nuclear weapons.
Under similar circumstances I would support Biden or Obama acting as Trump just did.
I doubt their ability to execute as well.
Frankly they sucked as commander in chief.
Congress has no authority or legal basis to usurp and exercise executive power.
Congress has no authority or legal basis to command military forces.
No legislation that usurps and exercises any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power or military command is constitutional.
“Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities”. Sadly, it’s on more issues than just regarding declarations of war.
Congress has the power to declare war.
Congress has the power to impeach the president.
The President, solely and exclusively, has the power to command the military.
The President, solely and exclusively, is vested with the executive power.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;….
AI Overview
The U.S. Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the President. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to declare war, raise and support armies, and provide for a navy.
Article II, Section 2 designates the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. This division of power necessitates cooperation between the two branches regarding military affairs.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Congress’s Powers:
Declare War: Congress has the sole power to formally declare war.
Raise and Support Armies: Congress can raise and fund the army and navy.
Make Rules for the Military: Congress can establish rules and regulations for the armed forces.
Appropriate Funds: Congress controls the purse strings, meaning they decide how much money is spent on the military.
President’s Powers:
Commander in Chief: The President is the supreme commander of the military.
Initiate Military Action: While Congress declares war, the President can initiate military action in response to an attack or under specific authorization from Congress.
Where was “Schumer” when “Crazy Abe” Lincoln denied not prohibited and fully constitutional secession and proceeded on to his similarly unconstitutional, well-known war and “Reign of Terror” that ultimately ended in the installation of an inimical, illegal alien, 4-million-man, foreign, standing army on U.S. soil, changing the course of America finally to its current communist condition?
Saw an article some years ago, though I forget now who wrote it, that asserted that since the declaration of war clause in the Constitution does not require any specific format or wording or process to be used to declare war, then many Congressional resolutions and funding authorizations permitting hostilities should be considered as equivalent to declarations of war, even though they may not use that phrase. Such as, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed in 1964 giving LBJ the authority to conduct military operations in Vietnam could be considered as a declaration of war. Indeed, at the time Attorney General Katzenbach called it the “functional equivalent of a declaration of war”. And it has long been accepted that operational and security concerns may mean that a Commander-in-Chief might have to order military action first and notify Congress second. Under these concepts, most of the 125 military operations Prof. Turley refers to were properly authorized and Constitutional, even if they did not use declaration of war phrasing.
On the other hand, once operations have commenced and are on-going and the Commander-in-Chief either refuses to ask Congress for authorization or, once asked, Congress refuses to authorize it, then we really would have a legitimate Constitutional issue if the Commander-in-Chief continues operations on his own without authorization.
The slippery slope of war and one of the most famous quotes about the dangers of an Atomic Bomb “Woe is me” Albert Einstein, could be relevant in today’s quagmire. The intent of Iran is unquestionable and has been continually repeated for decades. WHY would anyone ignore that and allow them to secure the means to use an atomic bomb is beyond me. History is littered what Religious Zealots and the destruction they’ve caused. Speaking of Zealots, you cannot reason with them, and if don’t believe me just take a gander at the current crop of Democrats in their Chapel of Doom.
OT, good guy with a gun preventing a slaughter is real:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14836419/michigan-active-shooter-truck-church-congregation.html
Chuck Schumer bloviates, “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy.”
Funny. In Afghanistan, Chuck had no problem with Joe Biden unilaterally marching this nation into unconditional surrender with erratic mumbling and no strategy.
For me, I’ll take success over failure any day.
@Diogenes
Chuck would not be in office to begin with if NY weren’t one of the most corrupt state in the union. Thankfully, this is becoming more apparent by the day. It’s a port. Gangsters of boat land are gangsters. He is about as good as we can throw him with one arm. NYC is so isolated, I don’t know if the rest of the country can help them. Fine. Let them burn. I don’t know what it was (though, yes, I do) that made people on the coasts decide that they could speak for all of the space in-between, but they sure can **** off.
The day may come when we have to make Escape From New York a documentary.
There are Powers bigger than the United States and the Constitution, Israel, The U.N., China, Russia, India, ….
These are the ‘Invisible Hands’ of a number of Deep States.
The Puppeteers of the Puppeteers. They Rival God.
Every now and then I like to ask, who blew up the Nordstream pipeline? Biden said he would, and he did. It was an act or war according to international law.
Actually, the pipeline was sabotaged by a group of Ukrainians.
It is not actually clear whether Zelenskyy or the Ukranian government approved the plan.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-we-now-have-proof-ukraine-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/
ATS – Seymor Hersh is more credible.
While the spectator article claims lots of sources – it does NOT actually identify any of them.
Destroying a 1″ thick steal pipeline at a depth of 90meters is NOT a task that ordinary divers can pull off.
And Nordstream was blown up at multiple locations, and the detanations were likely triggered remotely.
While it is NOT impossible that Ukraine did this – especially given some of the amazing things Ukraine has done,
This is not a trivial task and not likely something have a dozen private ukrainians could have done.
Hersch provided actual sources – this does not.
Here’s a classic case of “saying the quiet part out loud”:
https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/president-biden-and-german-chancellor-scholz-joint-news-conference/608227?offset=735000000000
For those who are going to cry that the War Powers Act of 1973 allows this, answer me this:
“(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
Which of those is the justification?
Trump needs to be immediately impeached and convicted.
8647
@Anonymous
Oh, I’m sure multiple people will. Spare us. 🙄🙄 Try reading the article next time.
There appears to be a bi-partisan precedent or consensus—what parts of these facts/quotes don’t you understand? :
“The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period.”
“Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway.”
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone
secure authorization, from Congress.”
BTW: neither was war declared in the Bush-Iraq war.
Stop with your impeachment fever and your murderous numerals. There are better ways to make your points.
Ask Clinton or O-dumber on that one….
Try again
Funny how you ding-dons forget the past years…
Typical libs.
PS how about Viet Nam…. Care to explain
@Dustoff.
The War Powers Act of ’73 was written and passed because of Viet Nam.
Doh!
By the dems. Who started the war. Thank you Kennedy & Johnson.
History is not your friend.
The libs pulled that stunt to stop Nixon. Who brought the Nam war to an end….
I know, because I was there. How about you.
https://tips.fbi.gov/home
@Anon,
I think you need actually read the whole act and also realized that if presented to SCOTUS… it would be found to be unconstitutional (The act itself)
However, if you read the act, POTUS has 60 days to go before Congress and explain his actions.
If you paid attention to his actions… Look at Trump’s attempt to negotiate w Iran by going thru Turkey as an intermediary.
Iran was a no show. Congress will side w Trump.
When diplomacy fails… time to use the stick.
-G
For those who are going to cry that the War Powers Act of 1973 allows this, answer me this:
First you answer us this: where were you posting the same howling for impeachment of The Oval Office House Plant when he launched his attacks on Libya last year, in 2024?
That act you’re using as a crutch for more impeachments as an Exception Clause for Democrat presidents like Biden, Obama (Libya), Clinton, Carter, etc?
Got any justification for your hypocrisy and double standards, Democrat commie 8647?
As were a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Roe v. Wade of 1973, the War Powers Act of 1973 is unconstitutional as it constitutes an illicit amendment to the Constitution that usurps and transfers the power of the executive branch to the legislative branch.
Congress may only declare war and impeach the president.
_________________________________________________________________
Congress has no authority or legal basis to usurp and exercise executive power.
Congress has no authority or legal basis to command military forces.
No legislation that usurps and exercises any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power or military command is constitutional.
Iran hasn’t attacked US forces through its proxies?
Marines housing
In 2016 I voted for Trump to keep Hillary out of the office. Meaning you then voted for brilliant Oval Office House Plant in 2020, when he was simply known as Bribery Biden. Followed by voting in 2024 for the DEI Hire Border Czar, and a continuation of the policies of The Oval Office House Plant and Democrat police state fascism. You’re moving up in the world with your choices, clearly!
A world of 8.2 billion people needs problem solvers, not money, power and war mongers.
This is the face of what a moron looks like, naively believing that the genocidal religious cult subjugating Iran (who believe that if they can cause Armageddon by some means Mohammad will come back) would NEVER initiate a nuclear war by detonating their nukes in or over Israel – and thus the world is more safe with Iran having nukes than Trump eliminating that threat… because they aren’t war mongers like Trump!
The morons who believe a nuclear Iran, after decades of using terrorism to kill both Israelis and Americans, and killing and maiming THOUSANDS of American soldiers through giving the Afghan hajjis advanced IEDs and the training to use them, would NEVER give any terrorist group a nuke to detonate by some means over America. The Mad Mullahs are NOT ‘war mongers’ like Trump!
The morons for whom the repeated howls from the Mad Mullahs of ‘Death To America’ mean nothing – because the Mad Mullahs are problem solvers, with no interest in power – not war mongers like Trump!
If lunacy and stupidity were infectious, these Democrat morons would by the Typhoid Marys spreading it throughout the forum.
Professor Turley notes (click on 4th para ^ highlighted word “criticized”) that at the time Obama attacked Libya without Congressional approval, he (Turley) represented bipartisan members of Congress who objected to Obama’s anti-WPA move, -and lost: “In my [Turley’s] case, the Obama administration would not even refer to an attack on another nation as a ‘war.’ It insisted that it was a ‘time-limited, scope-limited military action.'”
I’m having difficulty in distinguishing this from what Trump did….
@lin
I’m guessing that depends on what happens next. The precision of this action was pretty remarkable. Guess we’ll see.
Mornin’, James. I agree; further, I don’t think Trump would chance to take any more significant actions without Congressional involvement.
@lin
And I agree in turn. 👍🏼
The most fatuous thing I have heard recently came out of the mouth of Tim Kaine, Democrat Senator from Virginia, when he opined that the President Trump should have waited two years more to decide whether to bomb the nuclear faculties. By that time, the Iranian regime would rebuild its air defenses, possibly have a nuclear weapon and the mission would be much more difficult and costly. What a nitwit.
For those who are wondering whether it’s OK for Dems to do something, but not OK for anyone else to do the same thing —- the answer is easy.
The Dems are the “Different People” — the magic phrase is —- “that’s different.”
Which, of course, it’s not.
Plus – the idea now is for Dems to constantly throw —– stuff —- against the wall and see if any of it sticks, in an effort to block Trump from doing anything.
The Dems have no goals, except to “get Trump” – and to acquire power to that Big Brain Dems can rule the roost for their own benefit.
Disgusting.
@elmer
Indeed. No one was crying to the UN when Obama was oopsie bombing weddings or doctors without borders. The only conclusion is there is some thickness among thieves between the modern left and the ayatollahs etc. I’m actually bracing myself for the possibility of a at least couple of opinions in our press defending the ayatollahs’ ‘sovereignty’ or similar, they are just ‘austere scholars’, after all. Again, guess we’ll see.
“. . . opinions in our press defending . . .”
That whitewashing of evil.
Or this one: Iran has a “right” to possess nuclear weapons. (An actual Leftist assertion)
Which is more detached from reality, and more destructive that asserting: The Mafia has a “right” to weapons.
Yes, this action was perfectly within the purview of the Executive branch. I hate that such measures ever need to be resorted to, but when they do, this is how you do it. And the dems know it. Nevertheless, if you’ll pardon the pun, the screeching, vitriol, and gaslighting this coming week will be nuclear. So predictable.
Yes, the Dems are a bunch of hypocrites and this is another one of million examples. We need to fight back hypocrisy with something more than a roll of the eyes.
August 22, 2024
There will be no future under Comrade Kamala Harris, because she will take us into a Nuclear World War III! She will never be respected by the Tyrants of the World!
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113009153020753095
@Anonymous
If the dems hadn’t been ousted from power in November, Iran would likely already have nukes, and likely at least partially funded by our tax dollars. It would then only have been a matter of time before the likes of the Taliban et. al., or even smaller cells would have had them as well.
THAT would have been the recipe for WWIII. In no time flat. We were headed into one of the most dangerous times in history under the left, across the board. No matter how sweet or repugnant the lies from them, we can never be in that position again.
You are so right. Harris would have played part II of O-dumber and handed Iran billions again.
Anything else you wish to bring up?